Interview with Daniel Taylor from The Guardian

[Tim of the Oak]

I've said this before and i'll stand by it until i'm blue in the face;

Newspapers are in the industry of selling units and getting clicks, they produce sports material that is at the same time; informative (to whatever degree you consider), provocative, interesting and populist.

we are still in a situation where a large make up of UK fans are United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. The Premier League era big boys. That's their market and 10 back pages of how good City are and how good they will be will not shift aforementioned units and neither will it attract this huge base of readership to their websites (and thus advertisers).

For now it remains inflammatory but i would love to see in 10 or 15 years time - when the current crop of 5 to 8 year olds who have emerged as footy fans and have a City side that wins titles to pick from - have disposable incomes, how the news coverage changes then.

The only 'agenda' i see is age-old newspaper bias to sell units and advertising to satisfy the largest consumer base. They have zero interest in squashing City out of existence as they are a massive market in the making.

This.

Correct. However this debate is wider than a / non media conspiracy, especially now JJIAC has his own fan boys on this forum!

 

[George Hannah]

There are probably a few things I should clear up.

Firstly, the last thing I would want to do is "betray the forum", as some have suggested. That was obviously never my intention, and I'm sorry if some think that.

I've always said, though, that whilst I think we do generally get negative press coverage, I have never believed that there is a pre-meditated, concerted agenda against the club, from the media at least. I just think they're sycophantic towards United, and play up to the lazy stereotype that City are bad for football. UEFA is a different matter, of course.

Secondly, the interview only really came about by chance (our kids go to the same football training sessions) and was conducted at fairly short notice. It wasn't really something I'd prepared for. The questions were drunkenly concocted with a couple of mates in a boozer in town after the Arsenal defeat, so due diligence wasn't really followed. And it probably showed.

We were probably ranting a bit, hence the over emphasis on the "agenda" and United comparisons, rather than asking more pertinent questions about the club that people would've preferred to see answered.

The original plan was to invite questions from the forum, but I thought I'd probably get grief from people whose questions weren't selected. As tempting as it was, I thought that specific questions regarding Jamie Jackson weren't fair game, considering they are colleagues.

Also, and I hold my hands up, I took certain things for granted, such as who McDonnell, Ladyman, Herbert etc support without actually researching it. Poor stuff, although I still maintain they clearly have a softer spot for United than City. It probably gave Danny greater ammunition though, when it comes to our perception of the press. They're certainly lapping it up on United forums.

Thirdly, the interview was done by email so there wasn't really the opportunity to follow things up properly. The interview would have been different, I suspect, if it was done verbally. It would've flowed more naturally and probably wouldn't have come across as confrontational as it did.

I think he possibly did come across a little patronising towards City fans at times, certainly regarding the Champions League, but as mentioned some of the questions were ill-prepared and set the tone of the interview. Plus Forest were losing 3-0 at the time. If pressed on City when we were losing, I'd probably be a touch cantankerous as well.

My only intention from the interview was for us to get an insight into how the press think, and hopefully most found it interesting. I appreciated his forthright views, even if some don't agree with them. It wasn't "sidling up the press", as some put it, just a chance to hear things from a different perspective.

"forthright" - sorry, but he was the usual anodyne, cutting it both ways bollocks. As were you Ric. And PB - you come across like rabbits in the headlights, all dewy eyed at hearing from some bloke from the so-called "intelligent" end of the journalistic spectrum. Fawning, we're not worthy bollocks. And you know it.

Haha, sorry it wasn't a Frost vs Nixon type interrogation. Feel free to post your questions to him if you like, he might answer them.

That's the trouble with some stains, very hard to wash out even with Mr Turner's crocodile tears. He'll Just have to console himself with the congratulations of Dismal on exposing once again how Bluemoon's trivial, petty obsession with United and the Agenda betrays the profound lack of "real football knowledge" of many of its posters.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

 

[George Hannah]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.
Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

except that he's only a pretend penitent

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.
Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

except that he's only a pretend penitent

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

[bobmcfc]

And I'm still banned from his Twitter. Have no idea why he hates me

 

[waspish]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

All this pro-active it's working hey

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

Not every poster, mate. A number of us have stated many times that City's press strategy is fine. All this 'ban them' nonsense is the rantings of the ignorant.

 

[George Hannah]

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

Not every poster, mate. A number of us have stated many times that City's press strategy is fine. All this 'ban them' nonsense is the rantings of the ignorant.

Other people's ignorance is indeed your specialist subject. Funny that.

 

[George Hannah]

I thought it was fine too.
Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

except that he's only a pretend penitent

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The thing about Vicky Kloss that some people seem painfully unable to appreciate is that she's clearly working within the limits that have been imposed upon her by the owners.

For reasons which extend beyond footballing ones, they wish to engage with the media in as collaborative a way as is practicable. This means that we are a soft target for those that seek to abuse that state of affairs and why claims from those on here that we receive a fair crack of the whip from the press descend even further into the absurd.

Comparisons with Taggart's banning culture at united are entirely anomalous, as this is not something our owners would wish to contemplate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

If it was up to me I'd be banning the fuckers at will, and I expect Ms Kloss would, at times, yearn for the capacity to do the same, but she's working within a job description with a wider purpose at its heart than her personal wants and needs.

Most people, even those who are self-employed, have limits placed upon the way they operate in a working environment, sports journalists included. Vicky Kloss is simply doing what she's told and those who criticise her personslly for the club's policy of non-confrontation with the press either haven't thought things through, or don't really understand how the world works.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

All this pro-active it's working hey

I guess the flip side to this is if we reckon we get a rough ride from the press now with city being pro active what would it be like if it was like we thought city doing nothing ?
It sorta makes you wonder what is going on at times.

 

[blueinsa]

The thing about Vicky Kloss that some people seem painfully unable to appreciate is that she's clearly working within the limits that have been imposed upon her by the owners.

For reasons which extend beyond footballing ones, they wish to engage with the media in as collaborative a way as is practicable. This means that we are a soft target for those that seek to abuse that state of affairs and why claims from those on here that we receive a fair crack of the whip from the press descend even further into the absurd.

Comparisons with Taggart's banning culture at united are entirely anomalous, as this is not something our owners would wish to contemplate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

If it was up to me I'd be banning the fuckers at will, and I expect Ms Kloss would, at times, yearn for the capacity to do the same, but she's working within a job description with a wider purpose at its heart than her personal wants and needs.

Most people, even those who are self-employed, have limits placed upon the way they operate in a working environment, sports journalists included. Vicky Kloss is simply doing what she's told and those who criticise her personslly for the club's policy of non-confrontation with the press either haven't thought things through, or don't really understand how the world works.

Spot on and she and Garry Cooke confirmed as much when we discussed this in South Africa.

Am I doing this name dropping thing correctly mate?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The thing about Vicky Kloss that some people seem painfully unable to appreciate is that she's clearly working within the limits that have been imposed upon her by the owners.

For reasons which extend beyond footballing ones, they wish to engage with the media in as collaborative a way as is practicable. This means that we are a soft target for those that seek to abuse that state of affairs and why claims from those on here that we receive a fair crack of the whip from the press descend even further into the absurd.

Comparisons with Taggart's banning culture at united are entirely anomalous, as this is not something our owners would wish to contemplate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

If it was up to me I'd be banning the fuckers at will, and I expect Ms Kloss would, at times, yearn for the capacity to do the same, but she's working within a job description with a wider purpose at its heart than her personal wants and needs.

Most people, even those who are self-employed, have limits placed upon the way they operate in a working environment, sports journalists included. Vicky Kloss is simply doing what she's told and those who criticise her personslly for the club's policy of non-confrontation with the press either haven't thought things through, or don't really understand how the world works.

Spot on and she and Garry Cooke confirmed as much when we discussed this in South Africa.

Am I doing this name dropping thing correctly mate?

Not bad. Not bad at all.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

The thing about Vicky Kloss that some people seem painfully unable to appreciate is that she's clearly working within the limits that have been imposed upon her by the owners.

For reasons which extend beyond footballing ones, they wish to engage with the media in as collaborative a way as is practicable. This means that we are a soft target for those that seek to abuse that state of affairs and why claims from those on here that we receive a fair crack of the whip from the press descend even further into the absurd.

Comparisons with Taggart's banning culture at united are entirely anomalous, as this is not something our owners would wish to contemplate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

If it was up to me I'd be banning the fuckers at will, and I expect Ms Kloss would, at times, yearn for the capacity to do the same, but she's working within a job description with a wider purpose at its heart than her personal wants and needs.

Most people, even those who are self-employed, have limits placed upon the way they operate in a working environment, sports journalists included. Vicky Kloss is simply doing what she's told and those who criticise her personslly for the club's policy of non-confrontation with the press either haven't thought things through, or don't really understand how the world works.

Not sure if I agree with the non confrontation bit the interview reads exactly the opposite to me.it looks like we confront them but don't confront them by going through other media sources .I think the policy is to keep it in house

 

[Blue Punter]

I've posted about Daniel Taylor (DT) on here before. Specifically the Semi Final game Vs Chelsea at Wembley a few years ago. I was sat very close to him when he was in the press box that day. With City 2-0 up and apparently coasting, he and many others looked as if someone had shat in their pocket.

I was with a Derby fan and asked him what he was picking up from the press box. He pointed out that a few seemed genuinely happy, but the majority looked mightily pissed off. He had no idea who DT was, but singled him out as looking as unhappy as anyone.

When Demba Ba pulled one back, DT noticeably perked up. Now I can understand that to a point as the game was a contest again. However DT himself has stated that late goals and the rewriting of copy are the bane of the print media. During the second half and at FT, we gave him a bit of verbals, nothing sinister, "Chin up, Daniel" that sort of thing.

When we played Arsenal earlier this year I was waiting for a few lads at the barrier on arrival at Euston. I wasn't wearing colours, but DT approached me and asked me how I thought the game would go. We had a brief but pleasant chat about looking forward to an entertaining game and then he went on his way. I actually respected him for stopping and having a chat, regardless if he remembered me from Wembley.

There's plenty of posters who feel he's been less than even handed about us in the past. For years we were an easy target. Some of it self inflicted, but unnecessarily helped by the likes of Baconface throwing derogatory quotes out to his lapdogs.

As GDM pointed out there's a really good opportunity for someone to acknowledge the standing of City within the game now. We don't want DT or his peers to blow smoke up our arse, but give us credit where its due on and off the pitch.

 

[BillyShears]

I think City's attitude towards the media has changed in the last 18 months. We are much more aggressive these days in how we deal with journalists/media outlets when we feel they have crossed us. Taylor alludes to it in his interview and I know from a couple of friends who work for newspapers/magazines (european ones rather than british ones) that City's current policy is pretty much "we don't want any press", and if you a story is done City don't like, Vicky or Simon Heggie are straight on the phone kicking off about it.

This means lack of access and the lack of real insight we provide to the media is very different from two years ago. We don't covet press of any description, we don't see the value in it anymore I guess.

This was perfectly highlighted in last summer's US tour when most of the papers didn't send anyone on the City tour because City simply refused to make Pellegrini, Soriano, or anyone else of any value available to the hacks.

 

[blueinsa]

I will also add this. Does anyone seriously think that Vicky would still be in the job if she was anything other than 110% capable?